Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Gilbert White's thesis that losses could be avoided
by sensible occupation of the floodplain resonated
with many individuals, and one agency, the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority, began to apply floodplain
management techniques to control unwise devel-
opment. Following major property damage during
an East Coast hurricane and submission to Con-
gress of the report by a team led by Gilbert White,
the Congress once again turned its attention to the
floodplain noting that '
...
despite the installation
of preventive and protective works and the adop-
tion of other public programs designed to reduce
losses caused by flood damage, these methods
have not been sufficient to protect adequately
against growing exposure to future flood losses.'
In passing the National Flood Insurance Act the
Congress established '
...
as a matter of national
policy, a reasonable method of sharing the risk of
flood losses
...
through a program of flood insur-
ance which can complement and encourage pre-
ventive and protective measures.' Thus, in 1968,
a new goal began to be defined - sharing the risk of
flood losses. Use of 'preventative and protective
measures' joined flood control as a method of
achieving national flood management goals. The
1968 Act and a supplementary Act in 1973 made
flood insurance available to communities that
wished to participate in a national program, if in
turn the communities would establish controls
over future development in the floodplain. The
1973 Act also required that anyone living in
the 100-year floodplain and obtaining a structure
mortgage that was federally insured (most mort-
gages) would have to purchase flood insurance on
the property.
The 1960s were a time for attention to environ-
mental issues. The United States and the world
became more cognizant of the environmental deg-
radation that had taken place over the previous
decades and the inability of the environment to
further sustain such intrusions. In 1970, NEPA
also established goals, declaring that 'The Con-
gress, recognizing the profound impact of man's
activity on the interrelations of all components of
the natural environment,
...
declares that it is the
continuing policy of the Federal Government, in
cooperationwithState and local governments, and
Flood Control Act moved federal interest to a
higher level and firmly established a goal of pre-
venting recurrences of the 1927 event. Up until
1928, local and state governments carried the
primary responsibility for carrying out flood con-
trol. The 1928 Act found that '
...
in view of the
extent of national concern in the control of these
floods in the interests of national prosperity,
the flow of interstate commerce, and the move-
ment of theUnitedStatesmails; and, inviewof the
gigantic scale of the project, involving floodwaters
of a volume and flowing from a drainage area
largely outside the States most affected, and far
exceeding those of any other river in the United
States, no local contribution to the project herein
adopted is required.' With this Act, the Congress
established a federal role in flood control and
related the objectives of flood control to the eco-
nomic well-being of the nation as a whole.
The 1936 Act further strengthened the federal
role finding that '
...
it is the sense of Congress that
flood control on navigational waters or their
tributaries is a proper activity of the Federal Gov-
ernment in cooperationwith States, their political
sub-divisions and localities
...
that improvements
of rivers and other waterways, including water-
sheds thereof, for flood-control purposes are in the
interest of the general welfare; that the Federal
Government should improve or participate in the
improvement of navigablewaters or their tributar-
ies including watersheds thereof, for flood-control
purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may
accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and
if the lives and social security of people are
otherwise adversely affected.' While further de-
fining the federal goal of improving the general
welfare of the nation, the Act did restore respon-
sibilities of the local and state governments for
providing the lands easements and rights-of-way
necessary to carry out the flood control activities.
From 1936 through 1968, controlling floods
clearly was the goal of federal, state and local
governments.
Economic and social concerns after World War
II focused attention on the growing cost of flood
control activities and the failure of the work
to date to significantly diminish annual losses.
